How would you explain it exactly ?
Wouldn’t it make you think about being more careful in future ?
If someone joked about the holocaust around a Jewish person who lost their whole family to it, do you not think they have the right to be really offended. Even if you were only joking around ?
Why is is that whenever you post something, you confuse the hell out of me? So if someone “desecrates” the Koran we’re supposed to be up in arms, but if a crucifix is put in urine and defiled, as a Catholic I’m supposed to let it go? This is the CLASSIC double standards of the left.
*Ahem* left! left!
This is what makes me RAGE! When was it that the working class lost their party to pretentious sanctimonious hypocritical handwringers. For the record, I HATE THE PC CROWD. :reallyangry:
Indian names for sports teams is not offensive.
Dressing up in a native american costume is not offensive.
The piss christ is offensive to many catholics (myself included). Flushing a koran down the toilet is offensive. This is not relative or even a matter of opinion. The first two examples don’t feature bodily waste. The second two do. And if you can’t see the difference you can piss off and eat my shit. (see- that was offensive.)
If you cause offense unintentionally- you apologise.
If you are offended- as JohhnReb maturely pointed out- you check whether it was intentional.
If you intentionally offend- you are being aggressive.
If you play “gotcha” with being offended and actively seek a chance to claim offence, you are a liar and you are hurting both those who wish to be jocular and those with legitimate grievances.
Why is is that whenever you post something, you confuse the hell out of me? So if someone “desecrates” the Koran we’re supposed to be up in arms, but if a crucifix is put in urine and defiled, as a Catholic I’m supposed to let it go? This is the CLASSIC double standards of the left.
*Ahem* left! left!
This is what makes me RAGE! When was it that the working class lost their party to pretentious sanctimonious hypocritical handwringers? Why does supporting a welfare state, trade unions, decent health and safety conditions for those in industry and greater distribution of wealth somehow link me with these shitheads? For the record, I HATE THE PC CROWD. :reallyangry:
Indian names for sports teams is not offensive.
Dressing up in a native american costume is not offensive.
The piss christ is offensive to many catholics (myself included). Flushing a koran down the toilet is offensive. This is not relative or even a matter of opinion. The first two examples don’t feature bodily waste. The second two do. And if you can’t see the difference you can piss off and eat my shit. (see- that was offensive.)
If you cause offense unintentionally- you apologise.
If you are offended- as JohhnReb maturely pointed out- you check whether it was intentional.
If you intentionally offend- you are being aggressive.
If you play “gotcha” with being offended and actively seek a chance to claim offence, you are a liar and you are hurting both those who wish to be jocular and those with legitimate grievances.
I can’t help it if someone is going to be violent for no good reason. I guess in your world violence is expected and encouraged.
Where did I say he would be violent ? Are you suggesting that because he is black, he would automatically get violent ?
Are you really so dislocated from what people might find offensive that you start blaming them for a reaction ?
I’ll repeat my other example for you since you have obviously decided to ignore it:
If someone joked about the holocaust around a Jewish person who lost their whole family to it, do you not think they have the right to be really offended. Even if you were only joking around ?
As for violence being “expected” and “encouraged” in my world, I’m afraid I’m a little lost. I’d welcome some further explanation though.
Ah right, so if you are joking around with your white friends in the street, and called one of ‘my nigger’, and a big black guy happens to walk past at the same time, you’d explain that he was over-reacting because of the ‘context’.
Fact is, you might have been pissing about and meant absolutely no harm, but if you got found out like that, you’ve got no real defence.
Perhaps The black guy in your example needs to re-examine his responses. When I walk down the street and hear someone use the word “Wop” my first reaction isn’t to go medieval on them. I try to see if I didn’t misunderstand, overhearing things isn’t like being in the conversation. Than if possible I try to engage in a positive manner, pointing out contributions and successes of Italians in the US, or if the person using the word is of Italian ancestry I point out the harm using it does to themselves in the larger picture.
(I’m considered something of a pedantic ass among my friends and neighbors.)
Being offended is fine, but be offended in a positive manner.
Well that’s excellent and a very healthy way to deal with the situation.
But my point really is that shouldn’t we factor in the potential for offense before we do/say certain things ?
I would have thought it was almost a duty as a human being.
If you ignore it then you are effectively being negligent by ignoring foreseeable effects.
Of course you we could all take a “i don’t give a shit if I offend anyone” attitude, but what use is that really ? Who will benefit ?
Your inability to see anything but in black and white is constantly astounding. And well done on just ignoring most of my questions. Classy.
Explain how “factoring in the potential for offense” automatically leads to nothing being accomplished. Give us examples of invention or advancement in mankind in this context. Or give us any examples at all of what the hell you are talking about.
You seem to be linking the simple ability to recognise offense with the advancement of the species. Is this still Planet Earth we are talking about here ? I cannot see the link. Please explain it.
How will all of society benefit if we all ignored the potential to give offense before we carry out actions or say things ?!
Third attempt:
If someone joked about the holocaust around a Jewish person who lost their whole family to it, do you not think they have the right to be really offended. Even if you were only joking around ?
I can’t help it if someone is going to be violent for no good reason. I guess in your world violence is expected and encouraged.
He’s a euro what do you expect? (insert saracstic hooligan comment here)
LATE
Hahaha, yeah but I’m not.
And what are you late for anyway ? And why are you always late ?
It’s a shortened version of “see you later”. A very popular national sportscaster (www.jimrome.com) uses it and I got hooked since I used to listen to his show constantly before taking my new job a few months ago. He also uses the phrase “I’m out.” which is another shortened version of “I’m out of here.”
Well that’s excellent and a very healthy way to deal with the situation.
But my point really is that shouldn’t we factor in the potential for offense before we do/say certain things ?
I would have thought it was almost a duty as a human being.
If you ignore it then you are effectively being negligent by ignoring foreseeable effects.
Of course you we could all take a “i don’t give a shit if I offend anyone” attitude, but what use is that really ? Who will benefit ?
Certainly “factor in”, but the problem arises when it becomes the dominant factor. Should George Carlin stop performing because parts of his act are offensive to some people, even though much of even those parts of his act can be enlightening or thought provoking?
Shouldn’t reasonable adults be able to self-censor when needed, or explain the offense civilly when needed? And shouldn’t those same adults be able to educate their children on those same basic skills? Why should it be in any bureaucratic agency’s power (government or athletic) to control what someone else says or how they say it?
I have no problem with any team changing it’s name or symbols after getting complaints and reviewing them for merit. That’s a mature response to a changing world. My complaint is when agencies like the NCAA try to make it a requirement to somehow find names that can never possibly offend anyone. St. Johns changed the name of it’s teams from “Redmen” (after the school colors) to “Red Storm”, how long before the remnants of the “Worker’s World Party” notice and try to get that changed?
If a bureaucracy can decide you can’t say “Indians” how many steps is it till they can stop you from saying “Ecologists”?
Certainly “factor in”, but the problem arises when it becomes the dominant factor. Should George Carlin stop performing because parts of his act are offensive to some people, even though much of even those parts of his act can be enlightening or thought provoking?
what bugs me is the PC crowd feeling chronically compelled to speak out for the poor and discriminated, even if they have no real beef with being the butt of jokes. speaking of which, butt jokes are really funny and “ima kick your butt” is, well, badass until you see a *NSFW* pic like this
the world of the owner of this sphincter likely revolves around it, but does this person no longer laugh or listen to george carlin out of sympathy with whoever george makes fun of?
oh well, lets google for those bush=chimp photchops. now thats humor (the kind that rhymes with tumor).
Your inability to see anything but in black and white is constantly astounding.
Not sure how you draw that conclusion. There is grey on a lot of issues, even on this one. If you bother to read some of the things I type rather than just assume you would realize this.
And well done on just ignoring most of my questions. Classy.
You mean the part where I quoted and responded to each one?
Explain how “factoring in the potential for offense” automatically leads to nothing being accomplished.
How many times has religion become a roadblock to progress? The world would still be flat if we didn’t want to offend people. The earth would be the center of the universe. A/C power wouldn’t exist. There would be no automobiles. There would be no United States. If we constantly censor ourselves out of fear that someone else might be offended then what can we possibly accomplish? Nothing plain and simple.
Give us examples of invention or advancement in mankind in this context. Or give us any examples at all of what the hell you are talking about.
See above.
You seem to be linking the simple ability to recognise offense with the advancement of the species. Is this still Planet Earth we are talking about here ? I cannot see the link. Please explain it.
See above.
How will all of society benefit if we all ignored the potential to give offense before we carry out actions or say things ?!
See above.
Third attempt:
If someone joked about the holocaust around a Jewish person who lost their whole family to it, do you not think they have the right to be really offended. Even if you were only joking around ?
Again, what you fail to grasp is CONTEXT. That makes a huge difference. Was the comment meant to be offensive? Was it merely just insensitive and ignorant? Who can’t see grey now?
Well that’s excellent and a very healthy way to deal with the situation.
But my point really is that shouldn’t we factor in the potential for offense before we do/say certain things ?
I would have thought it was almost a duty as a human being.
If you ignore it then you are effectively being negligent by ignoring foreseeable effects.
Of course you we could all take a “i don’t give a shit if I offend anyone” attitude, but what use is that really ? Who will benefit ?
Certainly “factor in”, but the problem arises when it becomes the dominant factor. Should George Carlin stop performing because parts of his act are offensive to some people, even though much of even those parts of his act can be enlightening or thought provoking?
Shouldn’t reasonable adults be able to self-censor when needed, or explain the offense civilly when needed? And shouldn’t those same adults be able to educate their children on those same basic skills? Why should it be in any bureaucratic agency’s power (government or athletic) to control what someone else says or how they say it?
I have no problem with any team changing it’s name or symbols after getting complaints and reviewing them for merit. That’s a mature response to a changing world. My complaint is when agencies like the NCAA try to make it a requirement to somehow find names that can never possibly offend anyone. St. Johns changed the name of it’s teams from “Redmen” (after the school colors) to “Red Storm”, how long before the remnants of the “Worker’s World Party” notice and try to get that changed?
If a bureaucracy can decide you can’t say “Indians” how many steps is it till they can stop you from saying “Ecologists”?
Absolutely why I choose the term ‘factor in’. I agree that some PC stuff in this regard goes too far. I enjoy risky humour as much as the next person.
Certainly “factor in”, but the problem arises when it becomes the dominant factor. Should George Carlin stop performing because parts of his act are offensive to some people, even though much of even those parts of his act can be enlightening or thought provoking?
what bugs me is the PC crowd feeling chronically compelled to speak out for the poor and discriminated, even if they have no real beef with being the butt of jokes. speaking of which, butt jokes are really funny and “ima kick your butt” is, well, badass until you see a *NSFW* pic like this
the world of the owner of this sphincter likely revolves around it, but does this person no longer laugh or listen to george carlin out of sympathy with whoever george makes fun of?
oh well, lets google for those bush=chimp photchops. now thats humor (the kind that rhymes with tumor).
I certainly find those bush=chimp photochops insulting to chimps. Where is PETA when we really need them ?
The problem is the new PC terms become just as stigmatized as the old ones. Calling someone ‘mentally challanged’ is nearly as disparaging as bad as calling them a ‘retard’ anymore.
Exactly! So you see...to me the PC movement is not about using the right “terms”. It is about shifing and changing the world from what it is and pushing it to progress into a more inclusive and tolerant society. It is about changing minds, not terms. People are still discriminating against minorities and “freaks”, and have hijacked the PC terms and perverted them.
When I was in elementary schools in the 1970’s, there was a class for special people, and they were made fun of using the term the teachers and scoicety gave them. They were called “LDs!!” (learning disabilites) We laughed at them and made fun of them because we were better! We were smarter, faster, more talented and skilled; and they were below us. We were the perfect American bullies bullying people. It was wrong and disgusting and I am embarrassed and ashamed of my actions.
It’s funny how if someone puts a crucifix in a galss of urine white European (ancestors of) Christians get upset, but if people use Native American religous and spirtual things disrepectfully it is not supposed to be offensive and white Europeans scratch their head and go, “I only mean it as a compliment!!”
Why is is that whenever you post something, you confuse the hell out of me? So if someone “desecrates” the Koran we’re supposed to be up in arms, but if a crucifix is put in urine and defiled, as a Catholic I’m supposed to let it go? This is the CLASSIC double standards of the left.
Then you missed my point. I was trying to say that you should be angry not just when the crucifix is ‘desecrated”, but also when any religous or spiritual object or item is desecrated; not just the ones conencted to your religion. I was trying to express that I notice that when “XChristmas” is under attack” the rightwing Christians freak out, but if a Wiccan is disparaged they don’t even blink an eye. To me that is wrong. One should balk at any disprespect towards any relaigion or spirituality regardless of ones conenction to it or not.
Please explain your background as to how you know when something is “offensive” or not to a Native American? I can’t count myself as a source, but having lived with a Native American, gone to the reservations, spoken to these people and studied and wrote about their culture for four years, I think I would know more than the average person. The people I’ve spoken to, don’t have a problem with the mascots and team names. Look at the bigger issue for once.
I knew that one was going to come up...sigh..rears its ugly head evry single time. Some polls say a majority doesn’t mind, some polls show the majority does mind...it depends on which poll you use.
Yes, some Native Americans don’t mind.... everyone knows that. The movie “Undercover Brother” didn’t offend evry black person either, but it did offend some. I was watching Mel Brook’s “Blazing Saddles” movie with one of my friends, who is black, and when it came to the line, Out of may way N%^&$#r!
